Oprah's new "SECRET" ?

[AndyD]

Australian magazine "New Idea" has the following on its website (http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/newidea/8790/this-week-in-new-idea/) advertising the current issue:

"Oprah is set to launch a new program that will be the financial equivalent of The Secret. New Idea has insider knowledge of the tips that will turn the fortunes around for all devotees of the media mogul. Oprah plans to make it her mission to help ordinary working people understand the tricks and tactics that helped her get rich and stay rich."

Anyone know anything about it? Is she trying to distance herself from "The Secret" or is this a new way to profit from it?

[JoeEllison]

Oprah is going to teach us all how to have the #1 talk show in the world? Sweet!

[Aepervius]

Australian magazine "New Idea" has the following on its website (http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/b/newidea/8790/this-week-in-new-idea/) advertising the current issue:

"Oprah is set to launch a new program that will be the financial equivalent of The Secret. New Idea has insider knowledge of the tips that will turn the fortunes around for all devotees of the media mogul. Oprah plans to make it her mission to help ordinary working people understand the tricks and tactics that helped her get rich and stay rich."

Anyone know anything about it? Is she trying to distance herself from "The Secret" or is this a new way to profit from it?

The second one msot probably. She wanted more money.

[Cuddles]

What's the point? If you actually believe the secret works, then you can get anything you want just by thinking about it. Why would you need any tips on how to get rich if you can get rich just by thinking that you're going to get rich? Could it be that Oprah doesn't actually believe and is just trying to con people out of even more money?

[Skeptical Greg]

How Oprah got rich ?

Being black and female at a crucial point in history when broadcast journalism was getting it's feet wet on issues regarding same ..

While many people today may qualify on the black & female qualifications, the point in history has passed, and alas, is no longer a source of otherwise undeserving wealth ..

[ExMinister]

It would be a lot more impressive if Oprah had actually usually used the Secret, versus a lot of hard work and being at the right place at the right time, to get rich.

ETA: It amazes me how people don't seem to notice that most of the self-help gurus promoting the Secret are not getting rich by using the Secret, but by writing books and doing seminars telling other people they can get rich using the Secret.

[dustbunny]

Hasn't Miss Winfrey got enough money? Isn't she bored of having her face plastered on Tv all the time? Maybe she isn't but it grinds on my nerves just a tad. All that money that she could never spend, doing nothing. I'd have more respect for her if she used her incredible wealth in a constructive way rather than be in the limelight for giving advice. It sort of rubs it in your face a little. Oh well! :oldroll:

[Darat]

It would be a lot more impressive if Oprah had actually usually used the Secret, versus a lot of hard work and being at the right place at the right time, to get rich.

ETA: It amazes me how people don't seem to notice that most of the self-help gurus promoting the Secret are not getting rich by using the Secret, but by writing books and doing seminars telling other people they can get rich using the Secret.


It's the old Joke isn't it?

Book Title: World's Quickest and Shortest Guide to Getting Rich Fast

Page 1: Publish a book called "World's Quickest and Shortest Guide to Getting Rich Fast

Page 2: See page 1

[quarky]

"How to be less gullible"

(send me $10 for the pamphlet)

[ksbluesfan]

Hasn't Miss Winfrey got enough money? Isn't she bored of having her face plastered on Tv all the time? Maybe she isn't but it grinds on my nerves just a tad. All that money that she could never spend, doing nothing. I'd have more respect for her if she used her incredible wealth in a constructive way rather than be in the limelight for giving advice. It sort of rubs it in your face a little. Oh well! :oldroll:

Oprah is generous. She gave over $50M to her own charities, Oprah's Angel Network and her Leadership Academy.

I'm not a fan of Oprah at all. I think her philanthropy is designed to provide good PR for Oprah. I beleve she could have helped more people with her money, but she gave away more money than I'll earn in my entire lifetime. Over time, her philanthropy will pale in comparison to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

[Skeptical Greg]

I'm sure her CPA tells her exactly how much to give away, in order to minimize her tax obligations..

[ExMinister]

As far as Oprah promoting The Secret, Eckhart Tolle, etc., I can think of another reason she might be vulnerable to people like them. Since the idea is that positive thoughts and feelings = spiritual advancement = being a magnet for wealth and success, Oprah herself is made to appear the epitome of someone whose success must indicate how positive and spiritually advanced she is.

It's terrible, but people are buying it. No one seems to consider how rotten it is to promote a belief that makes anyone who is impoverished or otherwise down and out appear to be negative and spiritually impoverished on top of everything else.

[Skeptical Greg]

I mentioned in another thread how blatantly materialistic Oprah is ..
One should wonder why this doesn't deter followers who see her as a spiritual leader ..

[Elizabeth I]

Hasn't Miss Winfrey got enough money? Isn't she bored of having her face plastered on Tv all the time? Maybe she isn't but it grinds on my nerves just a tad. All that money that she could never spend, doing nothing. I'd have more respect for her if she used her incredible wealth in a constructive way rather than be in the limelight for giving advice. It sort of rubs it in your face a little. Oh well! :oldroll:

Oprah is generous. She gave over $50M to her own charities, Oprah's Angel Network and her Leadership Academy.

I'm not a fan of Oprah at all. I think her philanthropy is designed to provide good PR for Oprah. I beleve she could have helped more people with her money, but she gave away more money than I'll earn in my entire lifetime. Over time, her philanthropy will pale in comparison to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

This whole "secret" business stinks, and I'm not an Oprah fan either, but as an employee of an organization (a public library) that depends to a great extent upon other people's generosity to keep going, I'm perfectly happy to let those who do good blow their own horns. I'll even help them, in the hope that it might encourage others towards equal generosity.

And, after all, if Bill Gates' and Warren Buffet's own PR flacks hadn't publicized their good works, we wouldn't know about them, would we? They could always give anonymously.

[dustbunny]

Oprah is generous. She gave over $50M to her own charities, Oprah's Angel Network and her Leadership Academy.

I'm not a fan of Oprah at all. I think her philanthropy is designed to provide good PR for Oprah. I beleve she could have helped more people with her money, but she gave away more money than I'll earn in my entire lifetime. Over time, her philanthropy will pale in comparison to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Good point. It's so frustrating though sometimes. These celebrities are worth a fortune and yet there are so many causes poorly funded. I'm not an Oprah fan either, I tend to lose interest in any celebrity when they're televised and in the media too much. Am I correct in saying she's a billionaire now? Unfortunately people who work for most of their lives helping the under privileged and needy don't get the recognition they deserve enough. Their satisfaction lies in knowing they've helped feed and save many desperate people.

In England celebrities are knighted, etc, for being famous talk show hosts or singers. Of course some earn their title by sheer hard work and it is this group of people who I admire most. You're probably right about her philanthropy but I'm sure there'll be someone ready to take her place.

[e-sabbath]

As a library worker, you have to thank Andrew Carnegie for wanting to do good to blow his own horn quite a bit, too.

[dustbunny]

As a library worker, you have to thank Andrew Carnegie for wanting to do good to blow his own horn quite a bit, too.

Absolutely.

[dudalb]

I don't have a problem with Ophrah getting some publcity from her charities, but I have major,major issues with the amount of sheer woo she has advocated and helped to spread, "The Secret" being the worst example. Just about the biggest amount of BS every put between two covers.

[quarky]

i want to see a death-match between Oprah and Britteny Spears.

(I don't care who wins; I just dig violence on TV.)

[moon1969]

Ah so Oprah found a new way to make more money and fool people? Oprah should be a preacher like Benny Hinn.

[borealys]

I don't have a problem with Ophrah getting some publcity from her charities, but I have major,major issues with the amount of sheer woo she has advocated and helped to spread, "The Secret" being the worst example. Just about the biggest amount of BS every put between two covers.

That's pretty much how I feel about Oprah. She does good, charitable things, good for her, and if she makes a lot of the charitable stuff all about her, well, that's fully forgivable.

It's the sickly combination of woo (including health woo, which is out-and-out dangerous) and sticky-sweet glurge that makes me despise Oprah. That, and the fact that she unleashed Dr. Phil on the world.

[AndyD]

I'm not a big supporter of the idea that billionaires funding charities is a useful way to actually spread charity. It would be better if the money wasn't selectively funnelled in this way such that it goes to a few choice areas of interest to the individual billionaire.

I am especially skeptical of this method of distributing funding when we're talking about a person who seems hell-bent on spreading stupidity or gullibility as a virtue.

[Tumblehome]

I am especially skeptical of this method of distributing funding when we're talking about a person who seems hell-bent on spreading stupidity or gullibility as a virtue.


That was kind of my thought. Is it good to give a few million to charitable causes if the money was earned in part by deluding people?

[Cuddles]

As I see it, spreading woo and giving to charity are two completely separate issues. I also give money to charity, but if I decide to go out tonight and murder someone, that's hardly going to stand up in court to get me off the hook. Doing a bit of good does not cancel out any bad you do.

[dustbunny]

As I see it, spreading woo and giving to charity are two completely separate issues. I also give money to charity, but if I decide to go out tonight and murder someone, that's hardly going to stand up in court to get me off the hook. Doing a bit of good does not cancel out any bad you do.

Very true, in fact a lot of people hide their true selves behind charity work. Look at Montel Williams he has his own causes and charities but yet he supports a woman like Sylvia Browne. You have to wonder their reasons why sometimes.

[AndyD]

Originally Posted by AndyD View Post
I am especially skeptical of this method of distributing funding when we're talking about a person who seems hell-bent on spreading stupidity or gullibility as a virtue.
That was kind of my thought. Is it good to give a few million to charitable causes if the money was earned in part by deluding people?


That wasn't actually my meaning. My concern is that they are more likely to funnel funds into things that fit well with the particular delusions they promote - or, at the very least, withhold funds from things they personally don't support.

As much as we "all" love to despise politicians and the governments they form, the democratic process at least ensures some small level of equity in the way they spread funding (even if a long timeline has to be drawn in order to see that equity).

[supercorgi]

Oprah is generous. She gave over $50M to her own charities, Oprah's Angel Network and her Leadership Academy.

I'm not a fan of Oprah at all. I think her philanthropy is designed to provide good PR for Oprah. I beleve she could have helped more people with her money, but she gave away more money than I'll earn in my entire lifetime.

I believe she could have helped more people if she made better decisions about her contributions. I got sort of disgusted when I saw her show about the Leadership Academy. Yes she is helping many underprivileged girls get a good education, but instead of educating a few, she could have given a good education to many more. Instead she spent a lot of money on providing the facility with designer table clothes, dishes, etc. Her response, "well the girls deserve to have nice things." True but wouldn't it be nicer to feed and educate more girls so they could eventually achieve enough to get nice things on their own?

[Garrette]

I believe she could have helped more people if she made better decisions about her contributions. I got sort of disgusted when I saw her show about the Leadership Academy. Yes she is helping many underprivileged girls get a good education, but instead of educating a few, she could have given a good education to many more. Instead she spent a lot of money on providing the facility with designer table clothes, dishes, etc. Her response, "well the girls deserve to have nice things." True but wouldn't it be nicer to feed and educate more girls so they could eventually achieve enough to get nice things on their own?And if you convince Oprah so that she begins to do what you suggest, how should she respond when someone else says "well that's nice that you educated a lot of girls in the U.S., but wouldn't educating a lot of girls in Kenya bet better? Or wouldn't helping a lot of refugees be better? Or wouldn't X be better than that and then Y be better still?"

What people comprise the committee to determine when a philanthropist is doing something nice enough?

[dustbunny]

I believe she could have helped more people if she made better decisions about her contributions. I got sort of disgusted when I saw her show about the Leadership Academy. Yes she is helping many underprivileged girls get a good education, but instead of educating a few, she could have given a good education to many more. Instead she spent a lot of money on providing the facility with designer table clothes, dishes, etc. Her response, "well the girls deserve to have nice things." True but wouldn't it be nicer to feed and educate more girls so they could eventually achieve enough to get nice things on their own?

Well said supercorgi. Designer table cloths do not make a person. How many children who don't get this privilege have a genius mind but will go unnoticed because they weren't one of the chosen ones. Being charitable is one thing but picking and choosing who is to be accepted is quite another.

[dudalb]

I'm not a big supporter of the idea that billionaires funding charities is a useful way to actually spread charity. It would be better if the money wasn't selectively funnelled in this way such that it goes to a few choice areas of interest to the individual billionaire.


Sorry,that's crap.
I have no problem with billionaires..or anybody else ...choosing what areas of charities they want to fund.
Sounds to be like you just don't like the idea of somebody having a Billion dollars, period.

[Tanstaafl]

i want to see a death-match between Oprah and Britteny Spears.

(I don't care who wins; I just dig violence on TV.)


Does there really have to be a survivor?

[Skeptic Guy]

I don't have a problem with Ophrah getting some publcity from her charities, but I have major,major issues with the amount of sheer woo she has advocated and helped to spread, "The Secret" being the worst example. Just about the biggest amount of BS every put between two covers.

That and her support of Dr. "never heard of an alternative medicine idea I didn't like" Oz. He may be a great heart surgeon, but what a woo.

[supercorgi]

And if you convince Oprah so that she begins to do what you suggest, how should she respond when someone else says "well that's nice that you educated a lot of girls in the U.S., but wouldn't educating a lot of girls in Kenya bet better? Or wouldn't helping a lot of refugees be better? Or wouldn't X be better than that and then Y be better still?"

What people comprise the committee to determine when a philanthropist is doing something nice enough?

Ummm...it was in Africa. I just think that feeding/educating people, providing shelter and clean water is more important than giving them nice dishes. And I don't think that sensible people would argue with that (except for designers of pretty dishes).

[godless dave]

It amazes me how people don't seem to notice that most of the self-help gurus promoting the Secret are not getting rich by using the Secret, but by writing books and doing seminars telling other people they can get rich using the Secret.

Sort of like how rich Amway distributors don't get rich by selling Amway products, but by getting other people to become Amway distributors. Similiar scam, really.

[Kiosk]

She studied bees, you know.

[Niobe]

Ummm...it was in Africa. I just think that feeding/educating people, providing shelter and clean water is more important than giving them nice dishes. And I don't think that sensible people would argue with that (except for designers of pretty dishes).
I think her reasoning was that it was a LEADERSHIP academy, getting a group of powerplayers ready to take charge in their own country and solve those issues from the ground up. Kind of like creating a few fishing instructors. Still doesn't excuse the designer table cloths.

[Garrette]

Ummm...it was in Africa. I just think that feeding/educating people, providing shelter and clean water is more important than giving them nice dishes. And I don't think that sensible people would argue with that (except for designers of pretty dishes).{Note: I'm not trying to come across as snarky as I probably I am; it's just this is a pet peeve of mine, so apologies up front}

My mistake on Africa v. U.S. The principle still applies. What if she had helped exactly the same number of girls but given them only sensible dishes? Would you have a complaint then? If not, then you're issue isn't really with how many people she helped but with the fact that she helped some people AND gave them things you don't find worthwhile.

The complaint has no merit.

[Cuddles]

Sorry,that's crap.
I have no problem with billionaires..or anybody else ...choosing what areas of charities they want to fund.
Sounds to be like you just don't like the idea of somebody having a Billion dollars, period.

Exactly. Some people think certain charities are more worthy of donations than others, but that doesn't mean it is bad to give money to the others. When it comes down to it, how could you possibly dictate where people are allowed to donate their money? The whole point of charity is that's it's given voluntarily to whoever the giver deems fit. The fact that you don't agree with their choice doesn't change the fact that they have given.

The problem I have with Oprah is not that she gives money to an unworthy cause, although I certainly agree that the money could be better spent. The problem is that she only has the money in the first place because she promotes all kinds of cons and woo. What she does with the money afterwards is irrelevant, it's the method of getting it that is the problem. If someone robs a bank and then gives all the money to starving whales in Africa, they are still a thief. You may not feel as strongly about them as a thief who spends it all on themselves, but you still don't just let it go. In the same way, Oprah may not be as bad as certain televangelists who take money and spend it on themselves, but there's an important difference between "not as bad" and "good".

[Stitch]

Over time, her philanthropy will pale in comparison to Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.

Over time? It's pretty pale to start with; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3913581.stm

[Skeptical Greg]

.....starving whales in Africa..:D

[AndyD]

Quote:
I'm not a big supporter of the idea that billionaires funding charities is a useful way to actually spread charity. It would be better if the money wasn't selectively funnelled in this way such that it goes to a few choice areas of interest to the individual billionaire.
Sorry,that's crap.
I have no problem with billionaires..or anybody else ...choosing what areas of charities they want to fund.
Sounds to be like you just don't like the idea of somebody having a Billion dollars, period.

Then you've misread my intent. I did not express opposition to billionaires doing as they pleased with their money, I said I don't see it as the most useful way to spread charity because it tends to be selective.

But of course, this is all somewhat off the original topic of what, exactly, Oprah is promoting.

[chainlink]

I've never understood why so many people idolize her. Don't they realize that the Oprah Winfrey Show is just a staged act.

I've always hated TV shows with a "live audience", since these are people - often who themselves work at the studio where the show is made - who have to behave like trained seals. And then in case the audience does not completely react the intended way, the audio can always be "sweetened" with pre-taped applause or laughter in the editing room.

The entertainment industry has been doing this sort of bandwagoneering of live shows since practically ancient times. It's amazing that people today seldom suspect shills and claques in the audience, apparently believing that what they see on TV must be real, spontaneous reactions for a studio audience composed completely of everyday people off the street. (funny how TV audiences always clap above their heads on shows where the cameras are positioned from behind; I've never seen such high-clapping in real life)

It's a shame is that Oprah seems to be viewed almost as some kind of journalist or researcher rather than what she really is: a professional actress in a staged production - with every aspect custom-crafted to generate the largest viewship possible.

But then I guess since many people believed that professional wrestling was real for so many years, it shouldn't come as a surprise that people would believe that what they see on shows like Operah's are 100% unfettered reality with nothing contrived or phoney ever going on.

OK, end of rant. :)

[Tumblehome]

That wasn't actually my meaning.

I see that now, sorry. Although now I disagree with you:

My concern is that they are more likely to funnel funds into things that fit well with the particular delusions they promote - or, at the very least, withhold funds from things they personally don't support.

As much as we "all" love to despise politicians and the governments they form, the democratic process at least ensures some small level of equity in the way they spread funding (even if a long timeline has to be drawn in order to see that equity).

It isn't government's job to prevent people from donating their money as they please. That's wa-a-y too restrictive.

[Chorlton]

Oprah ? Who ?

[dustbunny]

I've never understood why so many people idolize her. Don't they realize that the Oprah Winfrey Show is just a staged act.

I've always hated TV shows with a "live audience", since these are people - often who themselves work at the studio where the show is made - who have to behave like trained seals. And then in case the audience does not completely react the intended way, the audio can always be "sweetened" with pre-taped applause or laughter in the editing room.

The entertainment industry has been doing this sort of bandwagoneering of live shows since practically ancient times. It's amazing that people today seldom suspect shills and claques in the audience, apparently believing that what they see on TV must be real, spontaneous reactions for a studio audience composed completely of everyday people off the street. (funny how TV audiences always clap above their heads on shows where the cameras are positioned from behind; I've never seen such high-clapping in real life)

It's a shame is that Oprah seems to be viewed almost as some kind of journalist or researcher rather than what she really is: a professional actress in a staged production - with every aspect custom-crafted to generate the largest viewship possible.

But then I guess since many people believed that professional wrestling was real for so many years, it shouldn't come as a surprise that people would believe that what they see on shows like Operah's are 100% unfettered reality with nothing contrived or phoney ever going on.

OK, end of rant. :)

I stopped watching Oprah years ago. Her shows don't air much here now anyway but it just seemed to be the same thing over and over again. I've learnt a few things from this thread.

[luchog]

My mistake on Africa v. U.S. The principle still applies. What if she had helped exactly the same number of girls but given them only sensible dishes? Would you have a complaint then? If not, then you're issue isn't really with how many people she helped but with the fact that she helped some people AND gave them things you don't find worthwhile.
I think the big issue for me is intent. Why is she doing this? Is it truly out of a desire to help "starving whales in Africa" (that's a great phrase); or is it out of a desire to be seen helping them? My opinion, probably a combination of the two.

I'm always suspicious of "corporate charity". How much of it is truly well-intentioned, and how much of it is motivated by the enormous tax breaks and beneficial PR? One could make the argument that it doesn't matter, as long as it helps people; but I'd disagree with that for two reasons:

First, there's the issue of whether said charity is going to continue past the point where it stops being a benefit to the giver. When the tax breaks and good publicity no longer apply, will the giving continue, or will it be dropped in favour of something else that looks more impressive?

Second, does the charity actually accomplish something lasting and worthwhile for the recipient, or is it all about the giver. Too many of these corporate charity programs, like "one laptop per child", look good in the celebrity gossip rags, while providing little real lasting benefit for the recipient. You can give all the solar/muscle-powered laptops with satellite uplinks in the world to poor African children; but that's not going to mean much if they don't have a reliable source of clean water and sufficient nutrition, and a stable local government. Trendy educational fads don't mean squat if children are just going to get starved, raped, or slaughtered the next time the local el jefe is in a bad mood, or discovers he has AIDS.

I think my biggest objection to something like the Oprah "nice dishes" thing is the sheer self-serving attitude behind it. It looks good, and provides a nice little PR boost without actually accomplishing much. Kids with clean tin plates and a solid grounding in academics and critical thinking don't look nearly as good on television as fine china at a "leadership" academy. It's not about how much is given; it's about what is actually accomplished. If fine china actually accomplished more than tin plates, then I'd be all for it; but it doesn't. It benefits the giver, not the recipient. I don't care if someone contributes ten million, ten thousand, or only ten; as long as it does something worthwhile.

Another problem is that many of these corporate givers do so to offset the bad image generated by other actions, such as propping up oppressive regimes in order to keep labour costs low; damaging the local water table, depriving many local communities of reliable sources of clean water, especially to provide a completely unnecessary product; or simply basing their operations in regions with corrupt local governments so that they can get away with far more pollution and other environment-damaging practices they would not be allowed to get away with in developed regions like the US, Australia, or western Europe.

I know religion is anathema here; but there's a Christian principle that I like to apply to this sort of situation. It's expounded by a passage in Matthew, Chapter 6, version 1 through 4: "Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' in front of others, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Setting aside the religious message, the principle is still valid. Do your charitable works because they benefit the receipient, not because they benefit you.